Hari Shankar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8241 MP

                              1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                  ON THE 22th OF JUNE, 2022

              WRIT PETITION NO.13710 OF 2022

      Between:-

      HARI SHANKAR SHARMA S/O
      SHRI    JAGANNATH      PRASAD
      SHARMA,    AGE-    44   YEARS,
      OCCUPATION- DAINIK VETAN
      BHOGI    (DRIVER),    POSTING-
      SAMANYA VANMANDAL SHEOPUR
      DISTRICT SHEOPUR MADHYA
      PRADESH.
                                              ........PETITIONER

      (BY SHRI RAJ SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)

      AND

1.   STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,
     THROUGH            PRINCIPAL
     SECRETARY, VAN MANTRALAYA,
     VALLABH    BHAWAN,   BHOPAL
     MADHYA PRADESH.
2.   PRABANDH SANCHALAK, MADHYA
     PRADESH RAJYA LAGHU VANOPAJ
     SAHKARI SANGH MARYADIT 74
     BANGLE, KHEL PARISAR, INDIRA
     NIKUNJ,   BHOPAL    MADHYA
     PRADESH.
3.   VANMANDAL      ADHIKARI     /
     PRABANDH SANCHALAK, JILA
     LAGHUVANOPAJ SAHKARI UNION
                                            2

      SHEOPUR,            SAMANYA
      VANMANDAL, SHEOPUR, DISTRICT
      SHEOPUR MADHYA PRADESH.
                                                            ........RESPONDENTS

        (BY SHRI N.S. TOMAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the
following:
                                       ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

1& ;gfd] ;kfpdkdrkZ dks lu~ 2016 ls fu;fer fd;k tkos] ,oa osru ds lkFk lHkh ifjyfC/k;ka Hkh iznku dh tkosaA og e; C;kt ds fnyk;k tkosA 2& ;gfd] fd fjLIkksUMsVl dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkos fd ;kfpdkdrkZ dks izdj.k izLrqr djus esa gq, [kpZ gqvk gS og Hkh iznku fd;k tkos] D;ksa fd ;kfpdkdrkZ foHkkx dk lcls NksVk deZpkjh gSA 3& ;gfd] vU; og lgk;rk tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; ;kfpdkdrkZvksa ds fgr esa mfpr le>sa nh tkosA

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working on the post of driver as a daily wager from the month of July, 2010. A Sthaikarmi scheme has been floated by the State for regularizing the services of the daily wagers. As per Clause 1.8 of the scheme, the employees appointed subsequent to 16/5/2007 are entitled for the benefit of the Sthaikarmi scheme. It is submitted that the respondent no.3 sought permission to appoint a Driver on daily wages and accordingly, the respondent no.2 had granted the permission and thus, it is clear that the appointment of the petitioner was not a backdoor entry. On 1/8/2017 the respondent no.3 had issued a letter to the respondent no.2 that the

services of the petitioner can be regularized. One Vinod Kumar Rathore has also been treated as Sthaikarmi, whereas the petitioner has not been regularized. Thus, it is clear that the legitimate claim of regularization of the petitioner has not been addressed by the respondents. It has also been pleaded in the writ petition that by order dated 21/2/2019, some of the employees have been regularized.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. The petitioner is claiming that some of the similarly placed employees have been regularized by order dated 21/2/2019, but from the said order, which has been filed as Annexure P/5, it is clear that they have been given the status of Sthaikarmi in the light of Sthaikarmi scheme dated 7/10/2016. The Sthaikarmi scheme was formulated as several employees were not entitled to be regularized in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi (3) and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1.

5. During the course of arguments, it was enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner has been given the benefit of Sthaikarmi or not, but he was not in a position to make any statement. He continuously insisted that the petitioner is entitled for regularization. In the entire writ petition it is nowhere mentioned that the appointment of the petitioner was legal / irregular and not illegal. From the averments made in paragraph 5.2 of the writ petition, it is clear that the respondent no.3 sought permission from the respondent no.2 to employ one driver on daily wages and that permission was granted and the respondent no.2 also approved posting of the petitioner as a daily wager Driver by order

dated 8/2/2012. This procedure adopted by the respondents in taking the services of the petitioner as a daily wager cannot be said to be legal or irregular one. There is no averment that any advertisement was issued inviting applications from the eligible candidates for their recruitment on the post of Driver on daily wages. If any person is recruited on daily wages without giving due information to the similarly situated persons, then such an act of the respondents is not only violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, but it is also violative of Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Since the petitioner has failed to make out a case that his appointment is legal or irregular, but not illegal, therefore, no case is made out for directing the respondents even to decide the representation.

6. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2022.06.24 17:16:20 +05'30'